My prediction if the 2nd gets snubbed.

This is a discussion on My prediction if the 2nd gets snubbed. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I pondered this a while back, but refrained from posting. After reading a couple other threads on the issue, I decided I would throw this ...

My prediction if the 2nd gets snubbed.

I pondered this a while back, but refrained from posting. After reading a couple other threads on the issue, I decided I would throw this out there.

Day 1: Supreme Court rules that the 2nd amendment applies only to and organized militia (commonly know as the National Guard) not to the basic civilian.

Day 7: Texas call for an emergency vote and overwhelmingly decides to succeed from the union. Texas closes its borders, rounds up and deports all non Texas residences including all Federal employees in an amazing 36 hours.

Day 14: 15 states pass laws stating that possession of any firearm by a citizen is prohibited and is punishable under the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. All citizens are ordered to turn in their firearms to their local police/sheriff's office for disposal within 30 days. Any citizen that fails to comply will be prosecuted.

Day 28: 5 more states vote to succeed form the union. DC orders the National guard from the surrounding states to move in and enforce martial law on the defying states (including Texas), the state Governors and corresponding persons in position of authority are placed under arrest.

Day 35: 9 of the states National Guard units that were ordered to occupy pull out, defying orders by DC to occupy their neighbors. Those states in turn vote to succeed from the union.

Day 42: DC declares Martial Law on the entire nation. All borders are closed, international recall of all US citizens is ordered. All methods of mass transportation are stopped for any other than Federal business. In those states that have not defied the Feds, the citizens are rounded up/funneled to stadiums and other large venues for identification and tagging "For their protection". Those citizens are not released form these areas until their homes have been searched for weapons. 8 more states defy the Feds and succeed from the union. All disavowed states recall their National Guard units from abroad.

Day 49: DC recalls all military forces abroad to occupy disavowed States to bring them back into the fold. Military suffers from 60% loss in personnel to insubordination, AWOL, and desertion. Military places all service personnel caught under arrest, tries and executes ranking officers according to Military Law in time of war as an example to the others. DC requests assistance of UN in quelling of civil uprising. UN is in debate.

Day 56: Civil war ensues with no clear cut territory lines other than State borders, or metro areas in large population density areas. UN is still in debate. DC requests specific assistance from Canada, and Great Briton. Both decline. The world watches with morbid fascination at the fall of the "Block Bully". There are no foreign terrorist attacks attempted.

Day 180: Most of the fighting has stopped. 3/4 of the nation now unified against DC, and a clear territory line has been drawn ironically around the original 13 colonies as they existed around 1730. DC requests settlement talks with the opposing states. UN still in debate. Opposing states reply with "What's to talk about?". Remaining 37 states recognize each others governments as independents much like the European union. Passports and Visas required for "State to State" travel.

Day 260: The United States is now the Eastern seaboard. The Independent American Union builds the likeness of the great China Wall separating the "United States". There is a 5 mile "No mans land" on the east side of the wall.

Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.See also Sheep

I'd rather be proactive than reactive in protecting my rights; perhaps that's the best approach we should take, rather than predict SHTF scenarios. The only "end of the world as we know it" brain games I like are the ones that involve zombies.

Remember that the Supreme Court can only make a ruling; Congress has to actually pass something. Look how effective at that they've been lately.

Even more funny, they have to enforce it. Look at how much of the economy would be effected? Look at all of the firearm manufacturers that would protest, and how much monetary weight they have to back their protest? Plus, you don't think some of the more radical folks would actually take up arms and head to DC? C'mon, some of them are looking for excuses to.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to try to figure out the "what if we fail", and more prudent we figure out how to succeed instead.

A rather unlikely course of events. Since most Americans hold with an individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would expect moves to 1) strengthen and expand guarantees in state constitutions, and 2) a move toward a U.S. Constitutional amendment to remove all doubt.

Most states already have an amendment on RKBA. Here's a link: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm . Of course, some states seem to be more honored in the breach (e.g., Illinois.). I don't see much chance of a second civil war in the near future. Not while we still have the rule of law, which provides a path for laws to be changed -- even the Constitution.

I'd rather be proactive than reactive in protecting my rights; perhaps that's the best approach we should take, rather than predict SHTF scenarios. The only "end of the world as we know it" brain games I like are the ones that involve zombies.

Remember that the Supreme Court can only make a ruling; Congress has to actually pass something. Look how effective at that they've been lately.

Even more funny, they have to enforce it. Look at how much of the economy would be effected? Look at all of the firearm manufacturers that would protest, and how much monetary weight they have to back their protest? Plus, you don't think some of the more radical folks would actually take up arms and head to DC? C'mon, some of them are looking for excuses to.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to try to figure out the "what if we fail", and more prudent we figure out how to succeed instead.

-B

I agree with you on the Proactive standpoint. This is just a WCS that ran through my head, and a very unlikely one at that (with the exception of Texas succeeding).

Now if you notice, this all started with the Supreme Court making a ruling, the rest was done at State level until the Union started falling apart then DC stepped in.

I just remembered that in the original time line that I pondered was the NRA and others of the like were labeled as outlaw, the board of officers were placed under arrest by the Feds, as well as several little "Groups" that the FBI/CIA/NSA felt were potential threats to the security of the nation.

Some things do not take an act of congress to do. Make and official decision on something and agencies go willy nilly as quick as they can.

Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.See also Sheep

The OP scenario is pure fantasy. There is more of a chance Martians will land on Earth and defeat New England in the Super Bowl.

If the SCOTUS rules that 2A is not an individual right (highly unlikely) and allows DC to ban guns it will not change anything but anti propaganda. The fact is that many states (most?) have state constitutions that clearly define an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That the Federal government might deem that right is not protected on the Federal level does absolutely nothing to cause a national gun ban. No state will secede (there, their, succeed) and no civil war will occur.

And, as Andrew Jackson once said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it." The Supreme Court has only the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution. They voted themselves more power in Marbury V. Madison but the fact remains that the Judicial Branch, by design, is the weakest branch. We do not need robed men deciding emanations of penumbras in a document that is clear an concise.

The OP scenario is pure fantasy. There is more of a chance Martians will land on Earth and defeat New England in the Super Bowl.

Nonsense. With the Patriots playing the way they are?

To a large point I agree that the situation in the initial post is far-fetched at best, but anything any one or group of us would probably amount to the same. Just like in meteorology, while possible to predict the short term, it's still only a prediction and can still change or be wrong on a whim. Unlike in meteorology, we don't already have a system to make predictions in government about changes like this.

(I think y'all mean "secede", not "succeed"...)

And Texas doesn't secede, anyway. They maintain within their treaty with the US the authority to split from the US under certain conditions (can't remember what they were off-hand, but you get the idea).

And, as Andrew Jackson once said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it." The Supreme Court has only the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution. They voted themselves more power in Marbury V. Madison but the fact remains that the Judicial Branch, by design, is the weakest branch. We do not need robed men deciding emanations of penumbras in a document that is clear an concise.

First off, a quick tangent. Andrew Jackson was a scumbag. While the Supreme Court did indeed perform an unneeded power grab with Marbury v Madison, he did the same with them during that whole Trail of Tears fiasco.

Anyways, I don't this scenario is plausible. I think that grandfater clauses have been left in most gun control legislation for a reason, but I don't think this one ruling (even if it had more consequences) would spark off anything just yet. Things would have to get worse.

By all means though, I sure wish the states would start standing up to the Federal government more.

This is just a WCS that ran through my head, and a very unlikely one at that (with the exception of Texas succeeding).

In the current mood, I see Texas having the greatest chance of succeeding, whether the people decide to secede or not. That's the beauty of Texans. Gotta love 'em. When SHTF, all their "faults" become virtues, much like the original colonizers and frontiersmen. Back to basics, to be sure.

I also don't see the larger scenario playing out. So long as the Fed skims ~50% of the economy off the top, by virtue of either outright taxation, or ancillary effects, it's got a stranglehold on much, no matter how one principle or another (such as the 2A) gets trounced.

A much more like scenario would be: the creditors calling in the debt, worldwide. At that instant, the block bully as we know it would be no more, forced to walk with its hat in its hand. Not very likely, but far more likely than the larger doomsday scenario crafted, IMO.

In either case, I'd like to think that the elected power mongers aren't that stupid. We'll see. Everything will work it way, in time.

Originally Posted by QKShooter

Not very likely but, sure would make for a good movie and one that I would pay to go and see.

I completely agree with BAC, especially on the zombies thing (and the spelling; it is 'secede'). I mean wouldn't it be much more fun to make the undead deader than shooting at the living. I do, however think New England could beat any Martian team in the super-bowl.
Anyway, SCOTUS isn't going to do it. The decision alone, let alone the enforcement, would be way too controversial/inflammatory. They know that we'd all lose our minds before enforcement even entered the discussion. That being said, however, I'm still keeping my NRA membership up to date and voting for Ron Paul.

Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.See also Sheep